Just listen to the snake oil, "financial services", make money quick, etc commercials on AM talk radio, and you will know that the Republican base is fertile ground for con artists.
Maybe you should ask a Hillary supporter.
I am of the opinion that your wall of text applies to Both Hillary and The Donald.
I want the "America First" policy, I just don't want a egomaniac attached to it.
The straw man is saying that we think Hillary loves us and will take care of us. We don't think that. Do you even know what a straw man is, *sparky*?
Do you win all your arguments by dictating your opponents position?Yes, I know what one is. My initial comment about Hillary was meant for sportage, who I seriously believe he thinks she loves him and wants to take care of him. As to you and others, my comment was (mostly) facetious.
What exactly is Trump offering those people?
From what I have heard talking to Trump supports they are middle class people that feel that they are slowly being squeezed to upper-lower class.
They would like to see borders controlled and stop illegal immigration, stop free trade deals and the flow of jobs to other countries, and bring back “Middle Class” morals, values, and economic opportunities. They want to be able to live in the idealized late ‘50’s to early ‘60’s again.
They see Hillary as bought out by bankers and large business interests. Oboma’s recovery does not seem to be supporting them much, and know that Hilary will be more of the same.
Trump’s talk is largely calculated to appeal exactly to this person. People who are feeling like America no longer has any opportunities available for them.
How much Trump can deliver to these people is up in the air, but they know that Hilary is not interested in helping them. Who else are they going support, loony Libertarians or Green Party commies?
<I may not agree with their logic, but I understand why they are grasping on to Trump>
As far as voting for Democrats, these people hear Hilary talking about closing coal mines, strengthening over seas trade deals, and continuing doing more of what got them to this point. I know that Hilary is making lip service to reaching out to them, but for the most part she is just talking the talk, because if she walked the walk it would alienate her supports, and she knows it, and they know it. I doubt that will happen.
What are you talking about? She's offering far more than lip service.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie.../clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/
I am of the opinion that false equivalence and other forms of "he/she does it too" are how children argue.
Do you win all your arguments by dictating your opponents position?
I'm only going by what I see on here. This sums up my opinion perfectly...
The Democrats of thirty years ago perhaps, the only difference between today's democrats and republicans is that the democrats know not to wear their corporatism on their sleeves like the republicans, usually.They could try looking at things objectively and realize that the Democrats are for the most part trying to help them and that they tend to back policies that actually work no matter how much the GOP claims they don't. I suppose that is way to much to ask of everyone though.
President Obama's decision to let his 2013 inauguration committee accept corporate cash and million-dollar donations marks quite a reversal for the president: for his first inaugural in 2009, he capped individual donations at $50,000 and banned corporate money. The Associated Press calls the decision "part of a continuing erosion of Obama's pledge to keep donors and special interests at arm's length of his presidency." But for former Sen. Russ Feingold, it's yet another sell-out by his friends in the Democratic Party to the big-money forces so dominant in politics today.
No Democrat has so publicly ripped his own party for embracing super-PACs and dark-money nonprofits than Feingold. In a new article for the journal Democracy, Feingold, who co-wrote the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, the last major campaign finance restriction in the US, takes Democrats to the mat. He calls 2012 "a big step" back for Democratic-led efforts to get big money out of politics, and singles out Obama's reversal on super-PACs. In February 2012, the president encouraged his donors to give to Priorities USA Action, the super-PAC backing him, while allowing his top deputies to appear at Priorities events.
On the PBS NewsHour, top Obama strategist David Axelrod defended Obama by saying that the president hadn't warned at all toward super-PACs but had to play by the rules of the game. You heard that a lot from Democrats in 2012. Yet with statements like that, Feingold says, Democrats were posing as a pro-reform party while tripping over themselves to "exploit any avenue to accept unlimited, corporate dollars to fund elections."
Beltway Democrats, Feingold argues, aren't going to reform big-money politics from the inside; they're addicted and they just can't quit. The task of fighting for real reforms to money in politics, of building what Feingold—who now runs his own pro-reform nonprofit, Progressives United—calls a "permanent majority" for reform, falls instead to liberal donors and activists outside of Washington.
Nice try, sparky. It's no straw man at all. The power brokers of both parties don't give a rat's fetid backside about you, me, sportage, esky, ivw, rudder, spidey, TH, thrash, senseamp, boomer, jhhnn, Vic, Fanatical, etc. They don't. PERIOD! If you think they do, you've been conned.
And how many times has it been pointed out that that many Democrats still vote against the wishes of many of these donors? That's the piece of the puzzle you conservatives keep missing. "Yes we'll take your money. No we won't let it influence our voting." It's why most of the Wall Street money that went to Obama in 2008 suddenly went to Mitt Romney in 2012.The Democrats of thirty years ago perhaps, the only difference between today's democrats and republicans is that the democrats know not to wear their corporatism on their sleeves like the republicans, usually.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/russ-feingold-obama-democrats-sold-out-super-pacs
How many times have we heard the phrase," I may not agree with it but my competitor is doing it so I need to do it too"
A phrase used often by those that need to rationalize their behavior not just to others but to themselves in order to numb the constant pricking of their conscience by the values and beliefs they like to tell everyone that believe in.
What are you talking about? She's offering far more than lip service.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie.../clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/
Appalachia bet it all on black (coal) and lost. There is medicaid, welfare, and student aid to help them to hopefully transition to something else, but it's kind of ridiculous to expect Hillary to "directly make up for the economic loss of the coal industry to Appalachia." That's not the Federal government's job. They should get same help as all Americans, no more, no less.
What has she actually done? The article talks about her plans, none of which directly make up for the economic loss of the coal industry to Appalachia. Compound that with the fact that these are what she says she will do in the future, not what she has already done. It is just lip service to a community that she had previously offended.
I am not saying that these people, or the country as a whole, will be better off with Trump, but there is a reason Trumps does well with these groups of people. They do not trust Hilary. (Of course they are not thrilled with the establishment Republicans either). They have been promised things in the past, and have not had meaningful things delivered. At the same time they are talked down to and insulted by people who present themselves as "inclusive and progressive" democrats.
I hope that when (if) Hilary is elected she comes through for these groups, but they have been neglected and forgotten for a long time now.
Granted a vote for Trump is largely a vote to burn down the establishment, and they would not have voted for who Trump presented himself to be five years ago, but again who else will support them tomorrow? So far neither party's track record is good.
The Democrats of thirty years ago perhaps, the only difference between today's democrats and republicans is that the democrats know not to wear their corporatism on their sleeves like the republicans, usually.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/russ-feingold-obama-democrats-sold-out-super-pacs
How many times have we heard the phrase," I may not agree with it but my competitor is doing it so I need to do it too"
A phrase used often by those that need to rationalize their behavior not just to others but to themselves in order to numb the constant pricking of their conscience by the values and beliefs they like to tell everyone that believe in.
What has she actually done? The article talks about her plans, none of which directly make up for the economic loss of the coal industry to Appalachia. Compound that with the fact that these are what she says she will do in the future, not what she has already done. It is just lip service to a community that she had previously offended.
I am not saying that these people, or the country as a whole, will be better off with Trump, but there is a reason Trumps does well with these groups of people. They do not trust Hilary. (Of course they are not thrilled with the establishment Republicans either). They have been promised things in the past, and have not had meaningful things delivered. At the same time they are talked down to and insulted by people who present themselves as "inclusive and progressive" democrats.
I hope that when (if) Hilary is elected she comes through for these groups, but they have been neglected and forgotten for a long time now.
Granted a vote for Trump is largely a vote to burn down the establishment, and they would not have voted for who Trump presented himself to be five years ago, but again who else will support them tomorrow? So far neither party's track record is good.
Why is it so many people possess this desire to be conned?
To fall for empty promises?
So willingly place all their trust in something or someone that a small child would never entrust?
Why is it people so agreeably set themselves up to be taken, duped, cheated, conned, with blindly investing trust having absolutely no evidence of worthiness for their trust?
Why do people trust a used car salesman on word alone? Never having known the salesman before, yet investing all their trust simply by only words?
Why would someone invest all they have into property or land, sight unseen, believing only in what they were told by some salesman, a complete stranger, having no sound reasoning for trusting in?
Why would anyone blindly invest all their trust?
Well, people have done this every day since the beginning of mankind.
It is human nature.
And so enter stage right, THE CON ARTIST.
How could so many people fall for the con of Donald Trump?
So easily investing all trust in this complete stranger named Donald Trump?
And fact is, Donald Trump is a stranger. Unproven of worthiness and of trust.
Especially blind trust now given by so many. From millions.
Still, people willingly and blindly entrust in Donald Trump.
Believing in every word out of this Donald Trump's mouth, having absolutely no credibility.
Why would so many stand there and cheer on Donald Trump knowing less about him than they know about some stranger knocking on there front door selling brooms? Or selling property? Or selling carpet cleaning?
What is it within people where they are so agreeably and willingly taken advantage of?
Why do so many fall for the slick talking con artist, over and over again, never once questioning the con?
What exactly is this human nature flaw within so many people where they would believe anything and everything they are told, believe every empty promise as if it were proven fact, and from a total stranger?
In this instance, a total stranger named Donald Trump.
Why is it that so many people would place all their trust in someone only to be later embarrassed and humiliated when realizing the con played upon them?
The con they so willingly fall for without once ever questioning?
Then, the failure to later ask of themselves how could this have ever happen?
Why is it a Donald Trump can enchant millions of Americans simply because he claims and promises nothing of substance?
Why would so many people fall for this con?
The con artist, selling only by word of mouth, their only true talent being the skill of the con.
The con artist has nothing to sell. Only are they selling the con itself.
Trust me! Believe me! This will be the best ever! I will be the best ever!
I have proven, yet no actual proof ever offered.
Simply because they say they are proven, they are believed to have proven.
That is the art of the con artist. The art of the con.
Con artist of every kind and type have flourished since the beginning of mankind.
Selling the promise of nothing for the price of much.
They offer nothing of substance to their prey, but ask of everything in return.
Why do so many people seek and desire to be led like sheep to the slaughter of the con artist?
Why would anyone place all their trust in a total stranger before first entrusting in themselves?
What it is within human nature where the con artists of history such as Donald Trump have flourish and thrived?
What is this flaw of human nature given to so many, and the failure to overcome?
Forever trusting in the con artist, one after another, seemly a never ending cycle.
And what is that pungent scent the con artists such as Donald Trump can detect, pick up on, that scent of knowing where their deception can succeed and the con flourish?
Just as the strong will prey on the weak, the art of the kill is the talent of the con artist.
It is quite possible Donald Trump is the greatest, the very best con artist to have ever come along.
The greatest and very best con artist that history has ever known.
Sorry, but the majority of the population is waking up to the fact that Hillary isn't the caricature the GOP had made her out to be. Just like Obama didn't turn out to be a gun-grabbing Kenyan Muslim who wants to enact martial law to herd patriots into FEMA camps to be gay married to their aunts and uncles and made to produce countless new fetuses for liberals to dine on.